Cycle path etiquette - a question for cyclists.

[Nearholmer]

Sometimes, however unfashionable it is to do so in these times of hyperbole, it’s best to let the facts speak for themselves:

 

“In 2015 - the last year for which statistics relating to accidents caused by cyclists are available - two pedestrians were killed and 96 seriously injured after being hit by a bicycle. But every year more than 100 cyclists are killed and more than 3,000 seriously injured on British roads – the majority by motorists.”

[njee20]

I'm actually amazed it's 2 fatalities, it's often 0, hence the massive press coverage the death of Kim Briggs received. Of course for a proper apples:apples comparison you need to consider all road users killed by cyclists - how many car occupants or other cyclists were killed by cyclists?

 

In total 755 car occupants, 409 pedestrians, 365 motorcyclists, 100 cyclists and 103 "other" users were killed on the roads in 2015. But that's normal. Which is crazy!

[Torper]

In total 755 car occupants, 409 pedestrians, 365 motorcyclists, 100 cyclists and 103 "other" users were killed on the roads in 2015. But that's normal. Which is crazy!

 Crazy in what way?  The UK, I think, is second only to Norway in fewest road fatalities (based on numbers of deaths per 100,000 of population).  The European average is 9.3.  In the UK it's 2.9, and only Norway at 2.2 is lower.  Worldwide, 5% of deaths are cyclists.  Bearing in mind that anyone of any age can take a cycle onto a main road with no tests as to road sense, physical fitness, eyesight, or indeed anything, I sometimes wonder if unfettered cycling is not an anachronism in today's highly trafficked world.

 

DT

Edited December 15, 2018 by Torper

[njee20]

More generally the number of deaths, not cyclists specifically. Well aware our roads are very safe, but nearly 5 deaths a day is too many IMO. But that's normalised. Instead we talk about how dangerous cyclists are, with their jumping red lights and general reckless abandon. Even among those who get killed it becomes relevant if they wore a helmet, even if they've been mown down from behind by a driver not paying attention. I can't remember the last time I saw a news article commenting on whether a stab victim wore a stab vest!

 

It's a fascinating (if slightly depressing) psychology.

[Dunsignalling]

To be fair, I also see a fair few cyclists who, either through incomprehension of the conditions under which other road users have to operate, or carelessness, place themselves in positions of great hazard.

 

In particular, this takes the form of entering blind spots alongside trucks, but the continuing drive to increase motor vehicle crash-resistance means that most rear windows are now up to a third smaller than they look from outside. Aerodynamic considerations (which affect economy and emissions too) mean that mirrors haven't "grown" to make up for that. Consequently, there is no shortage of places for bikes (and even larger vehicles) to "disappear" around many cars and small vans these days.

 

There really needs to be a much more holistic approach to road safety across all vehicle types IMHO.

 

John   

Edited December 12, 2018 by Dunsignalling

[Reorte]

Yep, as we've all agreed several times we can come up with myriad examples of bad cycling.

 

Not 10 minutes ago I saw a car overtake another coming up to a blind crest over solid white lines, and the other day I had to perform an emergency stop to avoid a pedestrian who'd just walked into the road in front of my car. None of these things are overly relevant. I would happily see cyclists fined for riding on the pavement or in pedestrianised areas or jumping red lights. I also want to see drivers fined for speeding and the various other offences most commit regularly. The difference is that one group kill a lot more people. Yet it's not drivers who are ostracised, because that's normal behaviour to which we are desensitised.

No-ones desensitised to people being killed, although it's good to keep a sense of perspective about it - considering the number of people on the road the number dying IS very small.

 

Bad cycling isn't just a problem when it puts non-cyclists at risk. It's a problem when it puts the cyclists themselves at risk, and I pity the poor sod who hit them.

"One group kills a lot more people" - that's making an assumption of blame, and neglecting the effects of difference in sample size - careful you don't go down the path that some would where they blame a train that hits a car that weaved around level crossing barriers. Also "offences most commit regularly" - if they're that regular it strongly suggests that there need to be tighter criteria for reliably identifying the truly dangerous and getting them off the roads.

 

You point out someone overtaking on a blind crest, which (depending upon the road markings) may not even be specifically illegal although could / should be a candidate for a charge of dangerous driving. Concentrating efforts on such drivers would be far, far more effective, assuming there is an acceptable way of doing so, than fining people going slightly over the speed limit. For that matter looking at drivers who screech around corners below the limit that they really should've slowed down far more, even if the visibility is for it. That may not even be dangerous in that particular case but is probably a better indicator of the wrong attitude on the road.

Edited December 12, 2018 by Reorte

[njee20]

I agree Reorte, I think the standard of cycling in cities particularly is often very poor, it's interesting to note the numbers of cyclists killed by left turning lorries is disproportionately swayed toward women, who often ride far more defensively, and will put themselves in a position of risk, to pick up on John's point. Education of all is a key factor, but that wasn't necessarily what I was meaning. They are often simply utilising the infrastructure put in place - the very infrastructure they're often lambasted for not using, which will conventionally encourage you up the left hand side of traffic.

 

I'm in no way saying that cyclists are free from blame, nor that they can do no wrong, many are total morons and I find the numbers of them in London irritating! The converse is that you have to consider that in an altercation with a vehicle the cyclist is never going to come off better, and whilst I do agree that there are definite situations where I'd place split liability I'd suggest the number of instances analogous with the car weaving around level crossing barriers are very few indeed, but there are many instances of cyclists doing nothing wrong whatsoever and being simply mown down. Yet, because cyclists are a bit odd and not "one of us" it's easy to write those deaths off, because "he didn't wear hi-viz" or "it was a busy road" or whatever nonsense, as if that makes it ok. Like the stab victim not wearing a stab vest.

 

FWIW the car overtaking on the blind summit was on a NSL A-road, following a vehicle doing about 45ish, over double solid lines. Most definitely illegal, and likely to end horrendously had someone come the other way! 

[ejstubbs]

I'm actually amazed it's 2 fatalities, it's often 0, hence the massive press coverage the death of Kim Briggs received.

 

Unless I'm reading it wrong (and I'm more than happy to be corrected) then according to table RAS40004 in the full version of the government's annual "Reported road casualties in Great Britain" report, the figures for pedestrians killed when hit by pedal cycles in the years 2010 to 2017 were:

2010 - 4

2011 - 2

2012 - 2

2013 - 6

2014 - 5

2015 - 2

2016 - 3

2017 - 3

(Each link above takes you to a copy of the report from which I took the figures.  You need to search each report for table RAS40004 and look for the "All areas" section of that table.  The pedal cycle figures are at the upper left of the that section of the table.)

 

That makes 2 the mode, although also the minimum.  The outlier is 6.

 

I don't know the specific circumstances of any of the collisions reported in those stats* and IIRC the statistics don't apportion blame so there's no way to know in how many cases the pedestrian might have been primarily at fault.

 

A very quick sampling of the stats from some of those years for pedestrian fatality rates after being hit by vehicles of different types pretty clearly suggests that it's better to be hit by a pedal cycle than any other kind of vehicle apart from a motorcycle under 50cc (which seems odd, but there you go).  In theory, then: if you're determined to step out in front of a vehicle then a pushbike is 'safer' than anything apart from a moped.

 

You can download the data in a format which can be opened and analysed using Excel if you want to delve in to the numbers in more detail.

 

* Apart from one of them from 2017, which was Kim Briggs killed by Charlie Alliston as you mentioned.

[njee20]

I don't doubt you're right - memory failing me! I'll definitely remember to only walk in front of mopeds and bikes in future

[ejstubbs]

I'm not sure what explanation there might be for that regrettable peak in 2013-2014.  However, it looks like regression to the mean did its thing in the following years.

 

As you say, though, such incidents are still sufficiently rare that fatal pedestrian-pedal cycle collision fatalities usually get reported much more widely than fatal pedestrian collisions involving motor vehicles.  In that sense it is valid to speak of fatalities involving motor vehicles being 'normalised' (though they can be never be 'normal' to the families and friends of the deceased).  It's like the old newspaper saying: "When a dog bites a man, that is not news, because it happens so often. But if a man bites a dog, that is news."

 

It hacks me off when someone does something idiotic and/or dangerous on a bike because each such incident offers reinforcement for the prejudices and negative stereotyping that some people* choose to apply willy-nilly to anyone who enjoys cycling.

 

* Usually people who seem to like to label, categorise or compartmentalise individuals in to undifferentiated groups of "others" - e.g. muslims, gingers, BMW drivers etc etc - who they can then denigrate according to the negative attributes that they associate with those various groups.

[Butler Henderson]

In the last few weeks as a cyclist I have sat at a red light watching someone cycling the other way not stopping, and driven the correct way down a one way street and met a car coming the way.Everyone wants to get from A to B as quickly as they can and I've seen more cars jump red lights than cyclists but you never hear motorists complaining about drivers jumping red lights as much as they may complain about a cyclist doing it.

 

I would like to see the figure of how many cyclists were seriously injured as a result of pedestrians walking into them as that is the major hazard I seem to face  - once the excuse I got for someone wandering in front of me was "I thought it was my phone" referring to my ringing of the bike bell.

Edited December 12, 2018 by Butler Henderson

[Reorte]

In the last few weeks as a cyclist I have sat at a red light watching someone cycling the other way not stopping, and driven the correct way down a one way street and met a car coming the way.Everyone wants to get from A to B as quickly as they can and I've seen more cars jump red lights than cyclists but you never hear motorists complaining about drivers jumping red lights as much as they may complain about a cyclist doing it.

I've seen cars carry on through the amber and even a little in to the red quite often but never carry on through the red when they weren't trying to beat the lights or really stretching things about just squeezing through, but I've very frequently seen cyclists go through red lights that were red way before they reached them, to the point where I'm more surprised if they stop, or were at any rate. It seems considerably less common now than it was a few years ago.

[njee20]

Yes I agree that's a definite difference - it's comparatively rare to see a car just drive straight through a red without stopping, although I nearly got taken out by one doing exactly that last week - just made no attempt whatsoever to slow and nearly hit about a dozen people on the crossing! I also agree that it's really annoying as it just reinforces a stereotype. You do see the police sitting beyond busy junctions in London and issuing on the spot fines to cyclists who jump the lights, which I think is great. There's just no reason for it.

 

I hit a pedestrian over the winter (on my bike) - she walked out into the road (lights were green for traffic), then turned back and walked into me. Obviously had headphones in and was on her phone. She was very apologetic, and we were both fine, but I was certainly unimpressed! Many are a total liability, possibly even more so than the cyclists!

[ejstubbs]

Yes I agree that's a definite difference - it's comparatively rare to see a car just drive straight through a red without stopping, although I nearly got taken out by one doing exactly that last week - just made no attempt whatsoever to slow and nearly hit about a dozen people on the crossing!

 

There is in Edinburgh a pedestrian light-controlled crossing quite close to a traffic-light controlled junction (here) where I have witnessed multiple instances of people driving through the crossing against a red light because they were so fixated on getting through the green light for the junction beyond.  (That said, I've also seen people drive through the crossing on red for no discernible reason other than criminal carelessness.)  But I don't think I've ever seen anyone drive through there on red deliberately*.

 

I have, at another junction in town, seen a taxi speed up to well in excess of the 30mph limit to try to get through this light that was already amber when he started to put his foot down.  He was a fair way further back than the Google car is in that Streetview shot, and if you swing the Streetview round you will see that he was heading up a fairly steep hill at the time, so his acceleration was hardly rocket-like.  Unsurprisingly, therefore, he failed by some margin to 'beat' the light, but still sailed though at undiminished speed.  As can also be seen from the Streetview, the road beyond the junction is essentially "blind" - the road goes downhill again immediately beyond the junction so it's dead ground on the other side - so he had very little idea what he might be approaching at that speed.

 

One might debate about whether deliberately but carefully riding through a red light is better or worse in terms of risk to third parties than accidentally driving through a red light because you aren't paying proper attention, or "misjudging" a light as it is changing.  But the bottom line is that all are definitely against the law, and it's deliberate flouting of the law on a regular basis that (understandably) gets people's backs up.

 

That said, one's perception of "regular" might affect the level of one's disgruntlement.  I have a suspicion that people are less likely to brand all drivers as red light jumpers because there are so many motor vehicles on the road - it's somehow easier to treat a motorist committing an unusual offence as an exception (though overall, drivers probably commit just as many offences as cyclists, e.g. habitual speeding).  There are significantly fewer pedal cycles on the roads, and one rogue out of a small population seems to be in some way easier to rationalise in to a generalisation about the whole.  I think something similar may contribute to stereotyping of "Audi drivers" and other readily identifiable subsets of a larger population.

 

FWIW I don't ride my bike through red lights.  At some junctions where the cycle time is inordinately long (e.g. here) I will sometimes - and only if it's not going to impede or inconvenience pedestrians using the footway - dismount, wheel my bicycle round the corner and then carefully rejoin the road.  I find some cyclists' reluctance to become pedestrians for a short while a bit difficult to comprehend: I've always thought it one of the brilliant things about a bike, that you can temporarily cease to be a "carriage" should the need arise, and use the footway.  It's hardly any more inconvenient than, for example, a motorist having to walk a slightly longer distance to the shop they want to visit because of parking restrictions in the vicinity - something that I would certainly expect any able-bodied driver to do if they actually GAF about not causing unnecessary inconvenience to others.

 

* Treating red lights as advisory rather than mandatory was common practice amongst the locals in Italy when I lived there in the mid-1980s - to the extent that I had to consciously wean myself off the practice when I came back to the UK!

Edited December 13, 2018 by ejstubbs

[Colin_McLeod]

Cycle path etiquette is to travel in single file on the left and STILL take up the whole path.

 

Edited December 13, 2018 by Colin_McLeod

[Dunsignalling]

In the last few weeks as a cyclist I have sat at a red light watching someone cycling the other way not stopping, and driven the correct way down a one way street and met a car coming the way.Everyone wants to get from A to B as quickly as they can and I've seen more cars jump red lights than cyclists but you never hear motorists complaining about drivers jumping red lights as much as they may complain about a cyclist doing it.

 

I would like to see the figure of how many cyclists were seriously injured as a result of pedestrians walking into them as that is the major hazard I seem to face  - once the excuse I got for someone wandering in front of me was "I thought it was my phone" referring to my ringing of the bike bell.

 

Sounds like you need one of those aerosol-powered air horns....

[Butler Henderson]

Sounds like you need one of those aerosol-powered air horns....

I have - just never got round to fitting it due to its clumsiness and reports from users that they cause people to panic or  immediately stand aside so definitely blocking where you  are cycling in an attempt to avoid them.

 

Re cars jumping red light, generally see at least one at week - maybe its a small town thing, fed up at waiting at a red light when the only other cars about are queued up behind.

[Pacific231G]

I'm not sure what explanation there might be for that regrettable peak in 2013-2014.  However, it looks like regression to the mean did its thing in the following years.

 

As you say, though, such incidents are still sufficiently rare that fatal pedestrian-pedal cycle collision fatalities usually get reported much more widely than fatal pedestrian collisions involving motor vehicles.  In that sense it is valid to speak of fatalities involving motor vehicles being 'normalised' (though they can be never be 'normal' to the families and friends of the deceased).  It's like the old newspaper saying: "When a dog bites a man, that is not news, because it happens so often. But if a man bites a dog, that is news."

There may have been something like a spell of particularly treacherous weather but it's more likely that the  peak was just a statistical anomaly. With such small numbers that's more or less inevitable. If there are two or three bad rail accidents in a year,  speculation that rail travel has suddenly become more dangerous is very likely to take hold* but you have to look at such figures over a far longer timescale to have enough data to identify any real trends. 

The unusual will always get more attention than the commonplace. It's unfortunate that deaths on the road are commonplace, though they probably always were even before the arrival of motorised vehicles, but there was a time when railway accidents were all too frequent (I think I can just remember instant one day railway life insurance policies being sold at railway stations to people about to travel) but now a rail accident is a major news story. 

 

I've just seen some statistics that suggest that though road death fatalities have been falling serious injuries have been increasing. The implication is that road transport hasn't actualy got any safer but the medical profession have got much better at saving the lives of its victims. We tend to only look at fatalities but "life changing" injuries also need to be considered. To be blunt, the greater risk that if I use the roads I may end up permanently disabled should concern me as much as my chances of getting  killed..

There's also the factor that, though cars have become safer for their occupants in terms of crash protection, there has been far less improvement in their safety for anyone sharing the public highways with them. There is also evidence that the safer people feel themselves to be when driving the less carefully they drive. In American research this was found to be particularly true of those driving SUVs whose feeling of greater safety and hence less safe driving (particularly in terms of drunk driving and not wearing seast belts) is  out of proportion to any actual benefit. 

[duncan]

Was there a major cycle race in 2013/14 ?  If so, the increase may have been due to pedestrians misjudging the speed of those racing om the road ?

[Butler Henderson]

Was there a major cycle race in 2013/14 ?  If so, the increase may have been due to pedestrians misjudging the speed of those racing om the road ?

There are major cycle races every year; the peak recently being the Tour of Yorkshire and Essex France in 2014, Doubt a cycle race has anything to do with the figures as if such an incident had occurred it would have been major news in the cycling press if not the national press; there are a few near misses reported every year globally when some dim whit wanders across the road but in terms any collision that is with street furniture or parked cars, and the cyclist is invariably carted away in an ambulance, which is point that seems to get lost in the argument - no cyclist is going to intentionally hit someone as whilst the person struck may get injured or worse the cyclist unless exceptionally lucky is going the hit the  ground with some speed. The London case concerned the use of a non road legal bike without brakes IIRC - if he had been on a road legal bike then the judgement may have been different as at the end of the day if someone walks out in front of you there is not a lot you can do bar hit the brakes and pray whether you are riding a bike or driving a car.

Edited December 15, 2018 by Butler Henderson